Jelimo v Kemboi & another (Environment & Land Case 78 of 2008) [2025] KEELC 761 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court refused to change its land judgment because the slip rule cannot fix mistakes the applicants themselves made years earlier.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court could amend its judgment and decree under the slip rule to substitute the parent parcel number 826 for 994
No - the amendment sought was substantive, not a clerical error, and was not attributable to the court
Section 99 permits correction of clerical mistakes or accidental slips, while Section 100 allows amendments for determining the real question in issue. The court, applying Trattoria Ltd, Fredrick Outa, Waiganjo and Benjoh Amalgamated, held that the applicants sought retrospective cancellation reaching behind parcel No. 994 to its parent title, which would dramatically and substantially alter the judgment. The facts had been within the applicants' knowledge since 2014 and appeared in exhibits and submissions, so the error was not the court's.
Whether the applicants' alleged mistaken impression about the parcel number justified the correction
No - the applicants knew the subdivision history from 2014 and failed to amend their pleadings
The respondent's list of documents of 23/6/2014 and the green cards produced as exhibits disclosed that parcel 826, originally Wilson Tangut's, was closed on subdivision creating 867-869, and 867 created 994 and 995. PW1 testified on this history. Had the applicants exercised due diligence they would have pleaded retrospective relief. The judgment was granted on a forward-looking basis from the creation of parcel No. 994, consistent with the pleadings.
Whether an inhibition order should issue over parcel No. 994
No - no such orders were sought in the pleadings and the suit is already determined
The court observed that inhibition orders require reasons, cannot issue indefinitely, and that the suit is concluded with only implementation of the decree remaining. The applicants' complaint that the respondent was selling the land was denied, and the decree cancelling fraudulently procured titles still stands against third parties since a fraud-derived title is a nullity.
Legal principles established
#- The slip rule does not confer jurisdiction on a court to sit on appeal over, or substantially alter, its own judgment; corrections must be obvious and not generate controversy on the decision
- Parties are bound by their pleadings and a court determines only issues flowing from the pleadings
- A transfer effected by fraud is a nullity and cannot be sanctioned by the court
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 4/11/2024 is dismissed with costs
- 2.The request to amend the judgment and decree to substitute parcel Kitale Municipality Block 1/Lessos/826 for No. 994 is declined
- 3.The prayer for inhibition of dealings over parcel No. Kitale Municipality Block 1/Lessos/994 is declined
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act (slip rule)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Bariwot & 4 others v Jelimo (Environment and Land Case E031 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7575 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7575 (KLR)5 Nov 2025not followed
- Lwangu v Ndote & 23 others (Environment and Land Case 79 of 2010) [2025] KEELC 7170 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7170 (KLR)22 Oct 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jelimo v Kemboi & another (Environment & Land Case 78 of 2008) [2025] KEELC 761 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kitale ELC NO. 78 OF 2008. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/761/eng@2025-02-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.